Even if other Teachings can't help sentient beings to be free from samsara totally; when other Religion's Esoteric or Occult dimension is integrated with Science (Religion & Science were never separate to begin with, by the way), the world can at least be a better place to live in, even if other Religion's Esoteric dimension doesn't go beyond the Alaya.

treehuggingoctopus wrote:Right. Provided Moses's experience was indeed merely a contact with some spirit and not a recognition of (something like, or that which in Buddhism may be referred to as) Buddha nature. Which we don't know. All we've got is decontextualized words whose real life, experiential meaning may have been quite possibly lost in translation. As for Christians and Jews, the mystical wing is there. In spite of the efforts of the monotheist establishment.

Buddha-dharma and its basic exposition do not require mysticism or symbolic interpretation. Moses did not begin to teach the Buddha-dharma, therefore he did not obtain a Buddhist view.

I am reading the Bible according to the faith system established around it. It would be patronizing, in fact, to attribute to the passage some meaning that is not communicated as oral and written tradition within that faith system. I fully acknowledge that there is some symbolic reconstruction of Biblical passages extant within the esoteric sections of Christianity, but these (while remaining Christian) do not infringe on the basic elements of monotheism, power of all-creation, and power of all-destruction.

dorjeshonnu wrote:And you know that because? The only way in which you could know it would require you to go through and complete at least one of the, and preferably both, paths. Forgive my doubting that you have already done that.

It is sufficient to know that effect follows cause, as action follows intention. Then when it is understood that the goal of one path does not match the goal of the other, the methods of one path do not match the other - are in fact insufficient for its purposes - and when it is known that the active practitioners of each path (those with understanding of what they are doing within that path) do not in any way attempt to claim an equivalency between the views, methods, or results of each, I think it is simple enough to draw at least the simple conclusion that each path is distinct from the other.

Is it considered offensively condescending to provide a Buddhist perspective on this forum? I had not read that while registering. I might consider it more offensive to misrepresent the doctrines of other faiths as they are presented by the teachers of those faiths who have been educated within those faiths.

dorjeshonnu wrote:Obviously there are numerous distinctions, but how 'key' they are in the end we can't say. Unless you're equating the Dharma with Buddhist doctrines - and all the faces of monotheisms with this or that set of sanctioned dogmas.

Only Buddhist methods produce Buddhist results. Study, listening, and various experiences have confirmed this for me. When you turn the matter into one of doctrine and dogmas, you set the question up against aversions toward authority which are psychologically rooted in cravings toward and against authority. The view of a person will vary in a number of ways, but a person does not constitute a faith system, nor does it ultimately matter to any other person what that first person would like every other person to call them. I believe that the topic under discussion is the variety of faith systems and their comparative effects relative to Buddhism, not the marvellous complexity of people in general.

Reflecting on the nature of freedomIn general, here, “freedom” means to have the opportunity to practise Dharma and not to be born in one of the eight states without that opportunity. “Lack of freedom” refers to those eight states where there is no such opportunity:

Being born in the hells, in the preta realm,As an animal, a long-lived god or a barbarian,Having wrong views, being born when there is no BuddhaOr being born deaf and mute; these are the eight states without freedom.

Beings reborn in hell have no opportunity to practise the Dharma because they are constantly tormented by intense heat or cold.The pretas have no opportunity to practise the Dharma because of suffering they experience from hunger and thirst.Animals have no opportunity to practise the Dharma because undergo slavery and suffer from the attacks of other animals.The long-lived gods have no opportunity to practise the Dharma because they spend their time in a state of mental blankness.Those born in border countries have no opportunity to practise Dharma because the doctrine of the Bud- dha is unknown in such places.Those born as tirthikas or with similar wrong views have no opportunity to practise the Dharma because their minds are so influenced those mistaken beliefs.Those born during a dark kalpa have no opportunity to practise Dharma because they never even hear of the Three Jewels, and cannot distinguish good from bad.Those born mute or mentally deficient have no opportunity to practise the Dharma because their faculties are incomplete.

Tirthikas (non-Buddhists) do not have the freedoms and advantages of the precious human birth. And, as he states later:

If your faith is not in the Buddha’s teachings but in powerful gods, nagas and so forth, or in other doctrines such as those of the tirthikas, then, no matter how much faith you might place in them, none of themcan protect you from the sufferings of samsara or from rebirth in lower realms. But if you have acquired a properly reasoned faith in the Conqueror’s doctrine, which unites transmission and realization, you are with- out doubt a fit vessel for the true Dharma. And that is the greatest of the five individual advantages.

Nagarjuna also lists the 5 advantages as being:

Born a human, in a central place, with all one’s faculties, Without a conflicting lifestyle and with faith in the Dharma.

So according to more traditional sources, only Buddhist teachings can provide the method for liberation. But that is not to say that a non-Buddhist who practices altruism, the paramitas, etc. can not generate merit and attain a precious human birth the next time around.

In all the eons of practice leading up to Buddhahood, how likely is it that every single one of those lives was spent as a Buddhist?

Of course Shakyamuni Buddha spent many lifetimes following a form of Jainism and many lives in forms of Vedic religion including his final incarnation. He says so in the Nikayas (and in the Jatakas as animals and other rebirths).

"Even if you practice only for an hour a day with faith and inspiration, good qualities will steadily increase. Regular practice makes it easy to transform your mind. From seeing only relative truth, you will eventually reach a profound certainty in the meaning of absolute truth."Kyabje Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche.

I don't know much about Islam, but I was listening to a Imam talk about how "Muslim mystics have enunciated certain paths or ways of attaining higher levels of spirituality in order to feel light of God, for a person to experience God directly ... These are very important steps to be undertaken in order for a person to attain what we call spiritual perfection, the inside of the inside. We have three levels, the outside which is kind of the ritualistic, superficial element which a lot of muslims engage in. The second level is the inside, which is a kind of traveling within yourself the path to God. The third and the highest level is the inside of the inside, that is God Himself, the Center. Attaining oneness with God. You can never become God, but you can exist within his close proximity, where you are like stars on a sunny day, you see the sun but the stars are also there." In response to a question of what life must be like in that state of being, he went on "You cannot even talk about it, it's ineffable, you can only experience it. The closest we can talk of it is bliss, spiritual bliss."

uan wrote:I don't know much about Islam, but I was listening to a Imam talk about how "Muslim mystics have enunciated certain paths or ways of attaining higher levels of spirituality in order to feel light of God, for a person to experience God directly ... These are very important steps to be undertaken in order for a person to attain what we call spiritual perfection, the inside of the inside. We have three levels, the outside which is kind of the ritualistic, superficial element which a lot of muslims engage in. The second level is the inside, which is a kind of traveling within yourself the path to God. The third and the highest level is the inside of the inside, that is God Himself, the Center. Attaining oneness with God. You can never become God, but you can exist within his close proximity, where you are like stars on a sunny day, you see the sun but the stars are also there." In response to a question of what life must be like in that state of being, he went on "You cannot even talk about it, it's ineffable, you can only experience it. The closest we can talk of it is bliss, spiritual bliss."

Yes, this sounds profound. Absolutely. But existing within the close proximity of a god is not akin to Buddhist practice.

Catmoon, I think that is a fantastic point. While one may not necessarily be able to attain enlightenment in one lifetime as as a Christian, that doesn't mean you can't get closer to the goal.

"What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range." Sabba Sutta.

dorjeshonnu wrote:Buddha-dharma and its basic exposition do not require mysticism or symbolic interpretation.

Very basic exposition, I'd say. All tantra is twilight language.

dorjeshonnu wrote:I am reading the Bible according to the faith system established around it. It would be patronizing, in fact, to attribute to the passage some meaning that is not communicated as oral and written tradition within that faith system. I fully acknowledge that there is some symbolic reconstruction of Biblical passages extant within the esoteric sections of Christianity, but these (while remaining Christian) do not infringe on the basic elements of monotheism, power of all-creation, and power of all-destruction.

The question is, is it reconstruction? Many Christians and Jews would disagree. More and more theologians certainly do. And the basic elements you're mentioning are just words. They can be read in an infinity of ways. They are read in an infinity of ways.

Also, there really is no single Bible-based faith system. The only thing that is comon to all of them is that they play with the words of the Bible, selectively and arbitrarily (as there's no other way, of course).

dorjeshonnu wrote:It is sufficient to know that effect follows cause, as action follows intention. Then when it is understood that the goal of one path does not match the goal of the other, the methods of one path do not match the other - are in fact insufficient for its purposes - and when it is known that the active practitioners of each path (those with understanding of what they are doing within that path) do not in any way attempt to claim an equivalency between the views, methods, or results of each, I think it is simple enough to draw at least the simple conclusion that each path is distinct from the other.

I'm not saying they are one. They certainly aren't. What I'm saying is that all such vehicles are infinitely malleable - not things, but open potentialities which can yield great many a result, some of them obviously adharmic or even anti-Dharmic, others, who knows? As far as the ultimate goal of some such 'mystical' variations on, or interpretations of, monotheist paths is, we couldn't really know unless we followed them to completion.

dorjeshonnu wrote:Is it considered offensively condescending to provide a Buddhist perspective on this forum? I had not read that while registering. I might consider it more offensive to misrepresent the doctrines of other faiths as they are presented by the teachers of those faiths who have been educated within those faiths.

I'd say it's you who's misrepresenting the doctrines, not me: you're suggesting there's something like a common substratum of all monotheist doctrines that provides not a a matrix to draw on but a set of relatively unambiguous tenets. What I considered disrespectful was precisely that oversimplification, as well as the radically evaluative juxtaposition of Buddhism and non-Dharmic religions you put forward.

OK. I've no sufficient experience here to forward that, or the opposite, thesis.

dorjeshonnu wrote:When you turn the matter into one of doctrine and dogmas, you set the question up against aversions toward authority which are psychologically rooted in cravings toward and against authority. The view of a person will vary in a number of ways, but a person does not constitute a faith system, nor does it ultimately matter to any other person what that first person would like every other person to call them.

On the contrary, if it matters to that person, it should matter to all other who discuss her or his relationship with the given faith system. If they are interested in throwing the actual constitution of the issue into some relief.

Twilight or symbolic language is not the most rigorous boundary of Buddha-tantra - practice and interpretation of the secret mantrayana also completely depends on the transmission of an intact lineage, along with the correct oral teaching given for a text. Significantly, Buddha-tantra with its lineage teachings is explicitly a subdivision within Mahayana practice, which is entirely consonant with the (developed) principles of several early Buddhist schools of thought. These early schools, and the basis of Mahayana practice are entirely explicit, and while the methods definitely change between outer Mahayana and secret mantrayana, there is no compromise of ethical or (perhaps more importantly to our little thread here) epistemic significance. If anything the ethics merely become more precise, and the episteme rather more definite. There is no sudden appearance of a pantokrator of some substance or of a general mechanism of rules for substance (although it is implied that there is some shaping influence, this is not the creatio ex nihilo of monotheism). In the same way, a Buddha can know any thing, but is not some ultimate "God" who can also do any thing.

The question is, is it reconstruction? Many Christians and Jews would disagree. More and more theologians certainly do. And the basic elements you're mentioning are just words. They can be read in an infinity of ways. They are read in an infinity of ways.

Also, there really is no single Bible-based faith system. The only thing that is common to all of them is that they play with the words of the Bible, selectively and arbitrarily (as there's no other way, of course).

Yes, it is reconstruction. Again, if we are discussing the views of people, we are no longer discussing religions per se. I do not keep track with theologians, but you would have to provide good references for me to take your statement about them seriously, as it is not characteristic of theology. "Just words" speaks to the interpretations of individuals. There is in fact a single Bible-based faith system, defined in common by and for Christians, based on the Nicene creed - what there is not is consensus on all points of theology, which is not in fact necessary (for a faith "system") and is not being argued here. It is also important to remember that these "points of theology" stem from the basic assumptions common to Christianity, and so possess a common context for arguments due to having the same consistent points of origination. Also there is an entire discipline of apologetics at work in theological explanation, which attempts to approach the problem of interpretation on grounds of reason. It is again rather patronizing to call these centuries of thought and argument 'selective and arbitrary'. These tirthikas do not have a problem with the argumentative mechanism of reasoning on the basis of assumption, they merely maintain a problem of holding to primary assumptions without mounting challenges effective enough to overthrow them entirely (and then not only devise correct conclusions, but implement the methods necessary to actually wake up as does a Buddha).

I'm not saying they are one. They certainly aren't. What I'm saying is that all such vehicles are infinitely malleable - not things, but open potentialities which can yield great many a result, some of them obviously adharmic or even anti-Dharmic, others, who knows? As far as the ultimate goal of some such 'mystical' variations on, or interpretations of, monotheist paths is, we couldn't really know unless we followed them to completion.

I do not disagree, however, I can only repeat so many times, that at the point that we are discussing an "infinite malleability of interpretations" (which I do not concede to be precise either, unless language is held to be meaningless instead of merely indicative), we begin to discuss the specific views of specific people, not in fact any kind of "religion." At the point that a person's view maintains the necessary elements of a Buddhist view, that person is effectively a Buddhist in terms of discussion of basis, path, and result (which has been covered in this thread already).

I'd say it's you who's misrepresenting the doctrines, not me: you're suggesting there's something like a common substratum of all monotheist doctrines that provides not a a matrix to draw on but a set of relatively unambiguous tenets. What I considered disrespectful was precisely that oversimplification, as well as the radically evaluative juxtaposition of Buddhism and non-Dharmic religions you put forward.

There is a 'common substratum' to each monotheist doctrine - the attribution of primary cause to a Creator Deity, from whom all subsequent and resultant cause and effect must stem. On this basis there is propitiation, purification, and eventually unification or everlasting service with this Creator Deity as the one and only Creator Deity (which is why we call it "monotheism") - instead of the pratityasamutpada (dependent origination) taught by Gautama, and maintained throughout each Buddhist tradition, very openly, and traditionally, and seminally. If we are not discussing some faith system dependent on this 'common substratum' then we are not in fact discussing monotheism - as promulgated by monotheists.

OK. I've no sufficient experience here to forward that, or the opposite, thesis.

Then I must exhort you to study, listen, and practice!

dorjeshonnu wrote:...The view of a person will vary in a number of ways, but a person does not constitute a faith system, nor does it ultimately matter to any other person what that first person would like every other person to call them.

On the contrary, if it matters to that person, it should matter to all other who discuss her or his relationship with the given faith system. If they are interested in throwing the actual constitution of the issue into some relief.

I have been imprecise and incomplete. Let me rephrase. The view of a person will vary in a number of ways, but a person does not constitute a faith system. It does not ultimately matter to the results of any person what they believe the name of their faith to be, nor should mere nomenclature limit the categorical understanding of any other person, which should be organized according to more valid characteristics of a person's view. Of course there is no problem in observing social niceties, or being skillful when discussing view - but to take the confusion of "faith system" with "person" and adopt it generally (or even "as our own") is merely to adopt confusion.

Andrew108 wrote:It is profound and certainly is a good example of Islamic wisdom.

A Sufi may enter Mecca, participate with other Muslims at the Kaaba, and thus complete the Hajj. A Buddhist or other non-Muslim will be fined and deported for even trying (and for lying to gain entry), regardless of some individually-held notion of consonance between (eg) nirvikalpa samadhi, appanasamadhi, or 'Buddhist awakening', with ma'rifah. For the Buddhist there is no duty, no special value, and no religious interest in completing a Hajj in Mecca.

dorjeshonnu wrote:Significantly, Buddha-tantra with its lineage teachings is explicitly a subdivision within Mahayana practice, which is entirely consonant with the (developed) principles of several early Buddhist schools of thought. These early schools, and the basis of Mahayana practice are entirely explicit

It's a bit OT, but... are you sure they're that explicit? The history seems to suggest otherwise - sticking to non-tantric Mahayana only, we've got Tathagatagarbha, Cittamatra, Madhyamika to mention only the most influential trends, all coming in endless varieties, all quarrelling with each other, all using scriptural evidence to support the claim that their sole position constitutes the only true exegesis of Shakyamuni's words. The words which appear to have been quite ambiguous indeed, all in all.

The core difference between, say, Christianity and Vajrayana may be that in Vajrayana you've got unbroken transmission - there are instructions and treatises as well as living breathing people who know how to read their twilight language. It might well be that there used to be, but no longer are, such people in Christianity. We can't know, of course. But it's a possibility several scholars consider very probable, pointing to the Gnostic origins of Christianity, whose initial sects were very much esoteric.

dorjeshonnu wrote:Yes, it is reconstruction.

We don't know that. Or, to be more precise, it surely is a reconstruction, but we don't know exactly of what. But the 'mystical' trend (in many varieties) is sure to have been in Christianity since 2nd century - and earlier Christianity was just a multitude of totally disorganised and centreless movements, some, and quite possibly many, of which were Gnostic.

dorjeshonnu wrote: Again, if we are discussing the views of people, we are no longer discussing religions per se.

That may be our bone of contention. I see no point in discussing religions per se, because I don't believe there is such a thing as Christianity or Buddhism per se - these are just entirely abstract, paper categories any discussion of which may be fun, if one is into that kind of thing, but will provide no useful insight into what's going on. I am a thorough nominalist here, I'm afraid.

dorjeshonnu wrote: I do not keep track with theologians, but you would have to provide good references for me to take your statement about them seriously, as it is not characteristic of theology.

Try Tillich, arguably the 20th century Christian theologian.

Incidentally Tillich argues that his reading of God as the Ground of Being was not only Eckhart's or John of the Cross's perspective, but also the standard view of the Desert Fathers. He never convinced me here, I must confess, but then I'm too biased and resentful towards monotheism to investigate the matter sufficiently. Who knows, maybe he's onto something?

dorjeshonnu wrote:There is in fact a single Bible-based faith system, defined in common by and for Christians, based on the Nicene creed - what there is not is consensus on all points of theology, which is not in fact necessary (for a faith "system") and is not being argued here.

Oh come on, the Nicene creed doesn't make you a Christian, it makes you an orthodox Christian (and at any rate by no means all branches of Christianity, historical or contemporary, subscribe to it - look at the Quakers)! There really is a huge difference here. And there are also sometimes wildly diverging readings of the creed itself.

dorjeshonnu wrote:There is a 'common substratum' to each monotheist doctrine - the attribution of primary cause to a Creator Deity, from whom all subsequent and resultant cause and effect must stem.

Again, read Tillich and check out his construal of the creator deity as the Ground of Being - or his understanding of creatio ex nihilo (or, I've been told, the traditional understanding of the latter in Eastern Orthodox Church). Or check any big names of postmodern theology, or death-of-god theology, or weak theology - Sponge, Cupitt, Caputo, Vattimo, etc. Or, for that matter, the leading names of liberation theology, who openly claim that praxis overrules all doctrine and reject the need to preserve the integrity of the church from non-Christian influences. Your vision of Christianity is one which Catholic traditionalists or Protestant fundamentalists would endorse. But there is a liberal wing, too - which very nearly dominates the CoE, for instance.

Btw, just to make sure I'm not misread: I am not arguing that Buddhism and Christianity are one, or necessarily lead to one and the same kind of realization, or even that they both must lead to some realization.

I was in a church and when the word God was said, this can probably be nature like it is? Is it possible the teaching turned in an expression of God, higher than us, while it can mean; nature 'beyond' dreaming state? Dual-nondual -coming home? Oh yes, also we are children of God. That can mean "we dreamstate" need to come home again or recognize our nature/wisdom-compassion?Maybe it depends from where we look.......no idea. At least I could bow.

muni wrote:I was in a church and when the word God was said, this can probably be nature like it is? Is it possible the teaching turned in an expression of God, higher than us, while it can mean; nature 'beyond' dreaming state? Dual-nondual -coming home? Oh yes, also we are children of God. That can mean "we dreamstate" need to come home again or recognize our nature/wisdom-compassion?Maybe it depends from where we look.......no idea. At least I could bow.

Perhaps we might look at the induction and context of experience.Are the indicators similar, for example the development of altruism and compassion?Are the seasoned practitioners able to find commonality and companionship?

It seems it is the depths that lead to the heights, not the nature of expressions.

Malcolm wrote:All nine yānas lead indirectly or directly to liberation. The first yāna, the yānas of gods and humans, includes Hinduism, Christianity, Islam, Shamanism, Taoism, Confucism, etc.

Hmm...this seems like a big assertion. Sources? It was my understanding that the śrāvakayāna was still centered around Buddhadharma, and simply focused on renunciation and personal liberation as an Arhat. Christianity, Islam, etc generally do not promote renunciation (especially not in the 21st century), and do not recognize liberation as a goal. And the very idea of being a "listener" of the Buddha's teachings would clearly be absent in most other religions. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to believe that all religions lead indirectly or directly to liberation, but I need scriptural sources to back that up.

Malcolm wrote:All nine yānas lead indirectly or directly to liberation. The first yāna, the yānas of gods and humans, includes Hinduism, Christianity, Islam, Shamanism, Taoism, Confucism, etc.

Hmm...this seems like a big assertion. Sources? It was my understanding that the śrāvakayāna was still centered around Buddhadharma, and simply focused on renunciation and personal liberation as an Arhat. Christianity, Islam, etc generally do not promote renunciation (especially not in the 21st century), and do not recognize liberation as a goal. And the very idea of being a "listener" of the Buddha's teachings would clearly be absent in most other religions. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to believe that all religions lead indirectly or directly to liberation, but I need scriptural sources to back that up.

There are two presentations of the nine yānas. The sgra thal gyur presentation of the nine yānas combines the śravaka and pratyekabuddha yāna into the one, making it the second yāna, and places the vehicles of gods and men as the first yāna. This is not only my understanding, but it is frequently mentioned by Chogyal Namkhai Norbu.

The feature of all these religions which makes them indirect paths is that they all extol some variation of the ten virtues. The practice of the ten virtues leads to higher rebirth. Therefore, they are indirect paths to liberation.

Not every śrāvaka attains śrotāpatti pratipannaka (stream entry), and not every śrotāpanna attains sakadagami (once returner), not every sakadagamanna attains anagami (non-returner) in their own lifetime. This is clear even from the Pali suttas, for example:

viniketa wrote:Not every śrāvaka attains śrotāpatti pratipannaka (stream entry), and not every śrotāpanna attains sakadagami (once returner), not every sakadagamanna attains anagami (non-returner) in their own lifetime. This is clear even from the Pali suttas, for example: